Go to any of the popular that host games, CBSSportsline, ESPN, Yahoo or whoever you use and see who is ranked first. You'll find that Mike Trout is #1, Ryan (shouldn't get the 2012 NL MVP) Braun is #2 and Miguel Cabrera is #3.

Cabrera's having a slightly better year at the plate (negligible differences in BA and OBP, better SLG by about 45 points) but Trout is ludicrously better in the field and on the bases. Plus Trout has a legitimate shot at a 30/50 season despite spending the first month in the minors.

Not that I believe team success should matter much, but as far as the playoff argument is concerned: The Angels have a better record than the Tigers even though they're not going to the playoffs and the Tigers are. And the Angels were something like 6-14 when they brought Trout up, so clearly they've been a lot better with him.

I still think a Triple Crown is amazing even though RBI's aren't what we thought they were. But I'd give the MVP to Trout.

FreakinB:Cabrera's having a slightly better year at the plate (negligible differences in BA and OBP, better SLG by about 45 points) but Trout is ludicrously better in the field and on the bases. Plus Trout has a legitimate shot at a 30/50 season despite spending the first month in the minors.

Not that I believe team success should matter much, but as far as the playoff argument is concerned: The Angels have a better record than the Tigers even though they're not going to the playoffs and the Tigers are. And the Angels were something like 6-14 when they brought Trout up, so clearly they've been a lot better with him.

I still think a Triple Crown is amazing even though RBI's aren't what we thought they were. But I'd give the MVP to Trout.

FreakinB:Cabrera's having a slightly better year at the plate (negligible differences in BA and OBP, better SLG by about 45 points) but Trout is ludicrously better in the field and on the bases. Plus Trout has a legitimate shot at a 30/50 season despite spending the first month in the minors.

Not that I believe team success should matter much, but as far as the playoff argument is concerned: The Angels have a better record than the Tigers even though they're not going to the playoffs and the Tigers are. And the Angels were something like 6-14 when they brought Trout up, so clearly they've been a lot better with him.

I still think a Triple Crown is amazing even though RBI's aren't what we thought they were. But I'd give the MVP to Trout.

Because I think you missed last night's thread, let me summarize the highlights:

1) You like Trout because you're a racist.

2) Miguel Cabrera deserves credit for moving to third base, a position he's never played before because who knows what he was doing before he came to the Tigers, it's a mystery!

3) Miguel Cabrera is 3rd in fielding percentage among third baseman, and Trout is fifth among CFs. So Cabrera wins. After all, we know he's a monster defensive third baseman. We couldn't possibly have seen him suck at third base for a few years with the Marlins, because who knows what he was doing before he came to the Tigers, it's a mystery!

In a (vain) attempt to not get too deeply into this, Moneyball was never about "winning rings". That's literally impossible to predict; there is no such formula, as once you reach the postseason, "anything can happen" takes over. All it takes to upset expectations in a short series is a bad outing or two by an ace, a no-name outfielder suddenly channeling Babe Ruth, or some fluky plays and bounces.

Moneyball was, instead, a way of looking for undervalued attributes and methods that would give the ball club a better chance to *compete* with other teams. OBP was the biggest one initially, but there are others.

FreakinB:Cabrera's having a slightly better year at the plate (negligible differences in BA and OBP, better SLG by about 45 points) but Trout is ludicrously better in the field and on the bases. Plus Trout has a legitimate shot at a 30/50 season despite spending the first month in the minors.

Not that I believe team success should matter much, but as far as the playoff argument is concerned: The Angels have a better record than the Tigers even though they're not going to the playoffs and the Tigers are. And the Angels were something like 6-14 when they brought Trout up, so clearly they've been a lot better with him.

I still think a Triple Crown is amazing even though RBI's aren't what we thought they were. But I'd give the MVP to Trout.

I fail to see how OBP could be important and RBIs aren't. You still need to score more runs than the other team. What are they gonna do, steal home? Score on double-plays and errors?

This shouldn't need to be repeated anymore but: The accomplishment is getting to the playoffs in the first place. When your payroll is 1/3 of other teams, just getting there on a consistent basis is amazing.

Hoopy Frood:Trout is batting 80 points lower since August 1st than he was batting on August 1st. MVPs don't do that.

Legitimate point. Not one that I personally buy into so much (early games count too), but there is something to be said for that. Doesn't swing it away from Trout for me though.

Dafatone:Because I think you missed last night's thread, let me summarize the highlights:

Hoopy Frood:FreakinB: Cabrera's having a slightly better year at the plate (negligible differences in BA and OBP, better SLG by about 45 points) but Trout is ludicrously better in the field and on the bases. Plus Trout has a legitimate shot at a 30/50 season despite spending the first month in the minors.

Not that I believe team success should matter much, but as far as the playoff argument is concerned: The Angels have a better record than the Tigers even though they're not going to the playoffs and the Tigers are. And the Angels were something like 6-14 when they brought Trout up, so clearly they've been a lot better with him.

I still think a Triple Crown is amazing even though RBI's aren't what we thought they were. But I'd give the MVP to Trout.

I fail to see how OBP could be important and RBIs aren't. You still need to score more runs than the other team. What are they gonna do, steal home? Score on double-plays and errors?

RBIs are important. You need runs to win.

But they're not necessarily a sign that a player is good. Good + men on base when you're up = RBIs.

Also, some runs score without RBIs. No runs score with runs (the stat). But nobody gives the slightest fark about runs, which is silly.

Thought experiment: Try to visualize seeing this similar sentence being written anywhere by anyone about the AL MVP race:

No, I'm not a Josh Hamilton hater because he's a drug addict.

Can't do it, can you?

I'm not calling anyone an out-an-out racist here, but if you don't think there's a double standard when it comes to Latino vs. white players, and you don't think there's a tinge of the age-old "Great White Hope" angle to this whole Trout vs. Cabrera thing, you're fooling yourself.

That's not to say Trout isn't deserving of the MVP, but let's not cover our eyes here.

Hoopy Frood:FreakinB: Cabrera's having a slightly better year at the plate (negligible differences in BA and OBP, better SLG by about 45 points) but Trout is ludicrously better in the field and on the bases. Plus Trout has a legitimate shot at a 30/50 season despite spending the first month in the minors.

Not that I believe team success should matter much, but as far as the playoff argument is concerned: The Angels have a better record than the Tigers even though they're not going to the playoffs and the Tigers are. And the Angels were something like 6-14 when they brought Trout up, so clearly they've been a lot better with him.

I still think a Triple Crown is amazing even though RBI's aren't what we thought they were. But I'd give the MVP to Trout.

I fail to see how OBP could be important and RBIs aren't. You still need to score more runs than the other team. What are they gonna do, steal home? Score on double-plays and errors?

Because OBP entirely controlled by the hitter, whereas RBI's are at least partially dependent on how many runners got on base ahead of said hitter. If a leadoff hitter hits exactly the same as a cleanup hitter, he'll have fewer RBI's simply by virtue of having fewer guys on base. If a guy on the 2010 Mariners hits exactly the same as a guy on a team with reasonable major league hitting, same thing.

It's not that driving in runs isn't important. It's just that there are more factors than the batter's own performance.

FreakinB:Cabrera's having a slightly better year at the plate (negligible differences in BA and OBP, better SLG by about 45 points) but Trout is ludicrously better in the field and on the bases. Plus Trout has a legitimate shot at a 30/50 season despite spending the first month in the minors.

Not that I believe team success should matter much, but as far as the playoff argument is concerned: The Angels have a better record than the Tigers even though they're not going to the playoffs and the Tigers are. And the Angels were something like 6-14 when they brought Trout up, so clearly they've been a lot better with him.

I still think a Triple Crown is amazing even though RBI's aren't what we thought they were. But I'd give the MVP to Trout.

The Triple Crown isn't the reason to vote for Cabrera. His stats late in games, with two outs and runners in scoring position, and late in the season when the team was fighting for a playoff spot are what's important.

Your team is down a run, there's guys at 2nd and 3rd and it's the bottom of the 9th, two outs. Who do you want stepping to the plate? Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout?

FreakinB:Because OBP entirely controlled by the hitter, whereas RBI's are at least partially dependent on how many runners got on base ahead of said hitter. If a leadoff hitter hits exactly the same as a cleanup hitter, he'll have fewer RBI's simply by virtue of having fewer guys on base. If a guy on the 2010 Mariners hits exactly the same as a guy on a team with reasonable major league hitting, same thing.

Not really true.

A walk can be the result of a wild pitcher.. a single can be the result of a poor infield.

And people take into account a players spot in the lineup when compairing stats. If a leadoff hitter has 70 RBIs and 140 Runs, and the clean up guy has 100 RBIs and 80 Runs, people aren't going to just look at the clean up hitter.

sigdiamond2000:That's not to say Trout isn't deserving of the MVP, but let's not cover our eyes here.

If you want to argue there's latent racism throughout baseball, that's a perfectly viable discussion in its own merit. Personally, I think if there's any prejudice being laid upon Cabrera, it's because of his past off-the-field problems moreso than his race.

FreakinB:It's not that driving in runs isn't important. It's just that there are more factors than the batter's own performance.

this is true, but you also want some way to indicate that a player who doubles when a runner was on first and two out has somehow outperformed the player who merely singled... and did so in a way that isn't just reflected in total bases...

Dafatone:2) Miguel Cabrera deserves credit for moving to third base, a position he's never played before because who knows what he was doing before he came to the Tigers, it's a mystery!

This isn't a totally bullshiat point. By moving to 3b, he freed up an infield spot for Prince and left the DH spot open for someone else. Without that move, Prince is the DH, Delmon Young is in left, Brandon Inge is at 3b, and the Tigers don't get VMart in the DH slot next year. There was value in Cabrera doing what was best for the team when a player of his stature could have easily said no. His agreeing to the move was probably what prompted the Tigers to sign Prince, since Prince said he did not want to be a full time DH. Where would the Tigers be without Prince AND VMart this year?